Wikipedia:Peer review/Richard Cantillon/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Richard Cantillon has been an interest of mine for a while, I finally got around to writing a complete article on him (when I started, the original article had been deleted for plagiarism). He is an obscure character in history, but nonetheless one of the most important economists (although, not one of the most influential) in the history of economic thought. Indeed, Jevons considered his Essai the "cradle of political economy", while some economists consider him the true father of political economy. With that said, I've tried to make the article as uncontroversial as possible. Over the next days I plan to revisit the article time and time again and add in information that I might have left out (including all information, no matter how meticulous is a daunting task when starting from scratch). My objective is to take it through FAC.
Knowing how difficult the FAC process is, as well as the process to prepare the article for FAC (and this article is not quite there yet), I'd like to ask for a peer review. Any and all advice is welcomed.
Thank you, JonCatalán(Talk) 04:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Sources review
- I often review sources at FAC
- Bibliography
- Is Mises considered a scholarly publisher, or a partisan non-scholarly press? Has it passed RS/N?
- Finegold and Jonathan, requires page range... no it doesn't. Is Mises Daily an RS. There's no indication of an editorial policy. You could alternatively establish reliability through a claim that Finegold and Jonathan are specialists. Also needs a retrieval date. Mises blogs are discussed negatively at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_58#Anarchist publishers can't publish WP:RS?, is this more than a blog?
- Higgs, Henry (1959). Place of publication required. If a reprint of an earlier work (suspect by author dates), needs original printing data as well.
- Jevons, William Stanley (January 1881). Volume and issue number?
- Good mixture of Austrian and standard Economics sources. Any heterodox / Political Economy Movement / Marxist takes? Surprised there's not a reference to Marx (Grudriesse probably) did Marx not use him ever? What was he wasting all his time in the Library for then? :) Quick and nasty MIA search: [Economic Manuscripts: Capital, Vol.3, Chapter 47 ; Anti-Duhring ; Capital Vol. I - Chapter Twenty-One] Anti-Duhring is positive; vol 3 is passim on theory of ground rents as a general theory of surplus value; Praise in vol 1 for recognising time-wages and piece-wages as identical.
- Citations
- ""He was born in Ireland, in March, 1897, according to Hone, and" surely _not_ 1897
- "Burke's Heraldic Illustrations, 1845, plate 51." italics requires, no?
- Full citation please: Potter, William (1650). "The Key of Wealth". Johnson Reprint Corp.. ? Original date and publisher, reprint date and publisher, locations?
- Cantillon (2010), [repeated issue], out of format and style, remove parenthesis
- Smith (2009), out of format and style, remove parenthesis
- Otherwise good! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Problems with citations should be fixed, excluding further information for Potter's book (if you follow the link provided you'll see that the original book is provided by a digital representation over Google books; I don't know any other information except that which is provided) and for Jevons (I don't know the issue or volume, although I linked to the pdf file).
- Regarding Marx, I don't know enough about Marx to know the context his analysis is made in. Furthermore, his analysis seems more like an opinion based on his criticism of profits, and I'm unsure how I could include Marx (he says Cantillon's profit theory is a general surplus theory, but I'm not sure if that's even true). Maybe I'll revisit it tomorrow and see how I can include him; if anybody else has any ideas, please go for it. On the topic of the Mises Institute as a reliable publisher, I think it's more sensible to consider the authors (Cantillon, Rothbard, and Thornton); in any case, the burden of proof is on whoever claims they are unrealible (and, there is no reason that a Mises Institute book would be less reliable than any other publisher—in fact, there is greater reason, since the Mises Institute is relatively well known and values its reputation). Finally, Mises Daily follows a review system in which the article is first considered by a lead editor and then passed on to another editor, who may then ask fellows of the institute to validate facts (for example, my review of a book by L. Albert Hahn was deferred to Joseph Salerno for validation). It may not be as rigorous as an academic journal, but neither is The New York Times. In any case, I think the case for its reliability should be made on an article by article basis (you can check citations on both articles), and can be made during the review(s). For the record, Mises Daily is a daily, reviewed publication; Mises.org has a separate blog.JonCatalán(Talk) 05:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, it makes me feel more confident about the reliability of the sources I questioned. If you're in touch with Mises, can you let them know that their publications, like Mises Daily need to have, or need to have made more prominent, their about page which discusses the editorial process of the publication? It would help wikipedia editors, and other readers! Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding Marx, I don't know enough about Marx to know the context his analysis is made in. Furthermore, his analysis seems more like an opinion based on his criticism of profits, and I'm unsure how I could include Marx (he says Cantillon's profit theory is a general surplus theory, but I'm not sure if that's even true). Maybe I'll revisit it tomorrow and see how I can include him; if anybody else has any ideas, please go for it. On the topic of the Mises Institute as a reliable publisher, I think it's more sensible to consider the authors (Cantillon, Rothbard, and Thornton); in any case, the burden of proof is on whoever claims they are unrealible (and, there is no reason that a Mises Institute book would be less reliable than any other publisher—in fact, there is greater reason, since the Mises Institute is relatively well known and values its reputation). Finally, Mises Daily follows a review system in which the article is first considered by a lead editor and then passed on to another editor, who may then ask fellows of the institute to validate facts (for example, my review of a book by L. Albert Hahn was deferred to Joseph Salerno for validation). It may not be as rigorous as an academic journal, but neither is The New York Times. In any case, I think the case for its reliability should be made on an article by article basis (you can check citations on both articles), and can be made during the review(s). For the record, Mises Daily is a daily, reviewed publication; Mises.org has a separate blog.JonCatalán(Talk) 05:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I think I figured out a way to incorporate Marx's Capital into the article. I just have to get my hands on a physical copy of volumes 1 and 3. Volume 1 also references Cantillon in passing, although he confuses Richard Cantillon with the later theorist Phillip Cantillon (he mentions that Adam Smith drew from Cantillon). See my annotations here: Cantillon/Marx. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)